http://dx.doi.org/10.

1590/2176-457322067

The Astuteness of As Astúcias da enunciação [The Astuteness of

Enunciation] / As astúcias d’As astúcias da enunciação

Oriana de Nadai Fulaneti

ABSTRACT
This article discusses issues related to enunciation, a dimension of fundamental
importance to the conception and study of language. More specifically, it focuses on the
way this issue is handled by the Brazilian linguist José Luiz Fiorin in his work As astúcias
da enunciação [The Astuteness of Enunciation]. The construction of enunciation in his
work will gain special attention because of its importance to Brazilian discourse studies,
in general, and to studies in French semiotics, in particular.
KEYWORDS: Enunciation; Astúcias da enunciação; Semiotics

RESUMO
Este artigo tem por objetivo discutir questões ligadas à enunciação, dimensão de
fundamental importância na concepção e estudo da linguagem, focalizando, de forma
especial, a maneira como, no Brasil, essa questão é tratada pelo linguista José Luiz
Fiorin em sua obra As astúcias da enunciação. Um dos aspectos a ser observado é,
precisamente, a construção enunciativa da obra, cuja importância pode ser percebida
nos estudos discursivos brasileiros em geral, mas sobretudo nas pesquisas relacionadas
à semiótica francesa.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Enunciação; Astúcias da enunciação; Semiótica


Universidade Federal da Paraíba – UFPB, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil; od.fulaneti@uol.com.br

Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015. 53

Introduction

One of the ways to discuss enunciation as a key aspect of language is taking the
work of José Luiz Fiorin − A astúcia da enunciação [The Astuteness of Enunciation] 1 −
as a guide for reflection. The first research question it has brought to mind, taking into
consideration how this enunciation is produced in daily discourses and at the same time
in a metalinguistic way, was: where is this astuteness in a very important work that deals
with such a dimension of language? Quickly and promptly a possible answer came to
mind: in the way the work is enunciated, that is, in its enunciation, in its enunciative
thread. To some extent, especially for scholars of enunciative phenomena, this answer
can seem obvious, although it is not. Later, however, the characteristic posture of this
semiotician led me to a second question: How can enunciation imply astuteness and where
is this astuteness in the work that is the object of this study? In other words, in what way
is As Astúcias astute? In this context another question arose: Why is Fiorin’s work astute?
The search for these answers, especially the response regarding the reason for this
astuteness in enunciation, is what guided the study presented here.
Regarding enunciation, it must be emphasized that the reader will also notice, in
this article, a very conventional enunciative strategy: there is a clear distinction between
the enunciator’s indirect speech of this text and Fiorin’s considerations concerning
enunciation in the work that is the object of this study, as well as this enunciator’s direct
speech about what Fiorin has said. Therefore, most of this article tries to present a glimpse
of the object of analysis, refraining from judgments, but making some comments on what
I consider to be constitutive of the astuteness of the enunciated object.
At the end of this enunciative play, which is typical of a scientific article, the
reader will decide whether the goal of this study was achieved and whether it was
productive, enunciatively “speaking.”

1
Fiorin (1996). This work is a result of the author’s study used in the process of his becoming a Full
Professor at the University of São Paulo. The book’s 303 pages contain Introduction, four Chapters, and a
Conclusion.

54 Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015.

1 On the Enunciative Proposal

In the passage that introduces the enunciative issues which will be discussed
throughout the work that is the object of this study, the language, this mysterious and
intriguing object, is the first subject matter to boost the author’s reflection, who by
evoking myth and science claims that

The intention is to show that the myth, taken out of the place in which
it is, constitutes a man’s explanation for what is inexplicable, that is, it
is a summary of the knowledge of each culture regarding the relevant
questions human beings have always faced.
[...]
While science is not able to explain the origin of things and their
meanings, there will be always a place for mythical thought [our
translation] (FIORIN, 1996, pp.9-10).2

From there, several questions emerge, i.e., Where do languages come from? Why
are there so many? Such questions have been continuously made by men since the
beginning of the world as we know it and can be seen in narratives that generated different
hypotheses. For example, the Genesis flood narrative served as a basis for the hypothesis
of the monogenesis of languages; the Tower of Babel story explains the mystery of the
diversity of languages, attesting that many scientific issues have emerged from myths.
Not by chance both Generative Grammar and Philosophical Grammar, when trying to
find linguistic universals, started from the idea of a single protolanguage, which is so
common in mythical narratives.
Keeping the mythical, the biblical and the linguistic together, Fiorin points out
that the expulsion from the Paradise leads to the entrance to human condition, that is, the
placing of man in History. Within the scope of language, historical chronology
corresponds to language instabilities, discourse, and the transition from a language system
to discourse through enunciation. Such view is corroborated by Benveniste in his seminal
works on enunciation, which were indubitably the basis for Fiorin’s reflections. As
already observed in the introduction of this reflection, through Fiorin’s Astuteness of

2
Text in original: “O que se pretende é mostrar que o mito, extraído do meio em que ele é, constitui uma
explicação do homem para aquilo que é inexplicável, o que significa que é uma súmula do conhecimento
de cada cultura a respeito das grandes questões com que o ser humano sempre se debateu. [...] Enquanto a
ciência não puder explicar a origem das coisas e o seu sentido, haverá lugar para o pensamento mítico.”

Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015. 55

Enunciation and other scholars’ studies, the thoughts of Benveniste come to the
Portuguese language and to Brazil.
The introduction and insistence on the theme of the constitutive presence of the
instability of language, for instance, is justified on the grounds of a historical linguistic
study. According to Fiorin, after many contributions from traditional schools, such as
Philology and the Hermeneutics − and the reign of the episteme of Structuralism − many
theoretical trends started focusing on instabilities, among which are Sociolinguistics,
Conversation Analysis, and, above all, Discourse Theories. Once more, Fiorin tries to
give a universalizing character to his reflection on the historicity of the studies on
enunciation. Even Chaos and Catastrophe theories are put by him in this historical
cauldron in order to support the argument that the investigation of instabilities is found in
the spirit of time in sciences related to languages. To Fiorin, insofar as myths and
discourse theories have two central theses in common − the first being that discourse even
under the coercion of system and structure belongs to occurrence, hence to History, and
the second that occurrences cannot happen out of time, space and person − a parallel is
drawn among the aforementioned myths and discourse theories.
In an astute way, from these considerations Fiorin establishes the major elements
of enunciation, enunciative phenomenon, and their relation to discourse, leading the
reader to think over the fact that through instabilities, discourse creates meaning effects
and we, as scholars of discourse, when understanding enunciative creations, also
comprehend the discursivization process. He emphasizes, however, that instability is not
a synonym for chaos or disorder, but only something that changes place, a feature that
ensures the possibility of a systematized work of language studies:

To follow a principle of Chaos theory, this instability is not random, but

it is a result of certain phenomena. The study of instability demands the
establishment both of its conditions of being and the semantic matrices
of meaning effects, which in a process of growing concretization will
reveal such conditions and matrices in each text [our translation]
(FIORIN, 1996, p.20).3

3
Text in original: “Essa instabilidade, para seguir um princípio da teoria do caos, não é aleatória, mas
resultante de certos fenômenos. O estudo da instabilidade exige que se estabeleçam suas condições de
realização e as matrizes semânticas dos efeitos de sentido que, num processo de concretização crescente,
vão manifestar-se em cada texto.”

56 Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015.

 Before the emergence of Fiorin’s work The Astuteness of Enunciation, most
Brazilian linguistic studies used a certain enunciative category (i.e., the choice of time or
person) randomly. However, Fiorin (1996), inspired by Benveniste (1974),4 who presents
person, time and space as categories of enunciation, conceived the hypothesis that there
should be a single explanation for these facts, that is, all the categories of enunciation
should be ruled by the same principles. Fiorin’s (1996) double purpose is then established:
on the one hand, he describes the categories of person, time and space in the Portuguese
language, and on the other hand, he shows how they appear in discourse and in the effects
of meaning they create. Thus, the innovative proposal is to build a typology of the
operation of discursive categories in both stable and unstable situations, thereby signaling
his intention of carrying out a careful study on enunciative instabilities and proving they
are not random. On the contrary, they are under certain coercions, which ensure the
existence of meaning. He reiterates that the explanation for instabilities is not in the
systemic or phrasal order, but in the discourse domain.
The conclusion that can be drawn from this concrete enunciative proposal, which
motivates important language study issues, is that when Fiorin (1996) mixes myth and
science, enunciation and discourse, not only does he place linguistic studies in
contemporary terms, but he also places their objects in human issues, as Benveniste and
other scholars had done before him. In other words, Fiorin (1996) goes beyond
methodological hermeneutic techniques typically used in the investigation of linguistic
categories.

2 On Theoretical Principals

Here the path to reach the concept of enunciation in Contemporary Linguistics is

traced by the author who briefly outlined a historical report on linguistic studies until the
emergence of Enunciation Theories. Quite significantly, the starting point for the
discussion of theoretical principles has the same title of the third chapter of the Course in
General Linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure: Object of Linguistics.

4
BENVENISTE, E. Problems in General Linguistics. Translated by Mary Elizabeth Meek. Miami:
University of Miami Press, 1974.

Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015. 57

 The first question approached here is the distinction between langue and parole
and the Genevan master’s choice, considering that his epistemological choice of studying
the langue, leaves out use, history, and instabilities. Once again, it is important to point
out that the return to Saussure is essential to understand, for instance, how Benveniste
also evokes the Genevan master to reach the concept of enunciation, which to him was a
link between language system and discourse. As a thinker and a knowledgeable scholar
of language and his studies, Fiorin does not present Saussurean linguistic theory as
obsolete. On the contrary, he emphasizes its importance for Linguistics and the advance
of language studies on discourse. The change of perspective in language studies is seen
by Fiorin as a necessity to broaden the object of analysis. Making use of Cervoni (1987)
he comments that

[...] the Saussurean proposal and a certain Structural linguistics, with

respect to langue/parole, show three restrictions:
a) they do not have an updated model (of converting langue into
parole), [...]
b) they do not realize that there are laws which organize discourse, by
affirming that parole is the power of freedom and creation;
c) they exclude from Linguistics every component of communication,
but the code [our translation] (CERVONI, 1987, p.10 apud FIORIN,
1996, p.29).5

After Fiorin discusses what other linguists have considered limitations of a

“certain” structural linguistics, he shortly explains Chomsky’s generative proposal. In
order to distinguish among different areas in Linguistics, he makes it clear that both the
Saussurean and the Chomskyan theories are a Linguistics of utterances phrase-and-
sentencewise, that is, they see enunciation as instances produced by particular subjects,
in particular situations, without the possibility of systematization. At the end of this
historical path, Fiorin mentions two remarkable linguists in this context: Roman Jakobson
and Émile Benveniste, showing the importance of their work concerning the recognition
of the centrality of enunciation in the constitution of discourse. In Fiorin’s opinion these
authors’ reflections led enunciation to be viewed as a system, because they showed that

5
Text in original: “[...] a proposta saussuriana e uma certa Linguística estrutural, no que tange à relação
langue/parole, apresentam três limitações: a) não ter um modelo de atualização (de conversão da langue
em parole), [...]; b) não perceber que existem leis de organização do discurso, ao afirmar que a parole é o
reino da liberdade e da criação; c) excluir da Linguística os componentes da comunicação que não o
código.”

58 Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015.

even in the variety of particular acts there is a general scheme that seems invariant. From
this perspective, a new object of Linguistics has emerged: linguistic use.
Fiorin concludes this path by reiterating that as enunciation is a constitutive part
of discourse the latter has to be treated as language in use and, as such, cannot be
understood as a set of dissociated phrases; its signification has to be seen as a whole. It is
with this thread of thoughts that the author makes the object of analysis alluded to in the
title salient: enunciation. At this point, he brings to light the definition and the concept of
enunciation and shows some fundamental elements that need to be taken into account so
that its study can be undertaken.
Among the definitions of enunciation, Fiorin chooses the classic one given by
Benveniste: “putting the language into operation through an individual act of use” (1974,
p.80).6 However, he also revisits the positioning of Oswald Ducrot (1976) and Eric
Landowski (1989), showing that he hasn’t lost sight of the various moments in which the
enunciative dimension of language is brought to the forefront of discussions, a point that
I have been trying to emphasize from the beginning of this paper. When he refers to
Landowski, Fiorin begins to hold a close dialogue with French semiotics, the
epistemological axis which will set the tone for his study from beginning to end. And his
reader will be seen as competent in the semiotic terminology used, as the considerations
made in the following paragraph show.
For Fiorin there are three aspects that are key to enunciation: the necessary
competences to produce an utterance; the ethics of the information given, and the
fiduciary agreement between enunciator and enunciatee. As he sees it, the necessary
competences for the production of an utterance are of different natures: linguistic,
discursive, textual, interdiscursive, intertextual, pragmatic, situational, etc. They are
competences that are fairly shared between enunciator and enunciatee; the bigger the
intersection between them, the better will be the comprehension of the utterances
produced−in theory. What Fiorin calls discursive ethics is concerned with the cooperation
principle, with conversational maxims and their violations and, in general, the “code of
ethics” which establishes what is considered honest as a verbal exchange.7 Finally, the

6
For reference, see footnote 4.
7
Cf. Grice (1979), Gordon & Lakoff (1971), and Orecchioni (1980).

Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015. 59

fiduciary agreement between enunciator and enunciatee determines the truth status of the
text.
To continue with these reflections, Fiorin details two instances that aim to clarify
how enunciation is being understood: the presupposed linguistic instance and the instance
of the establishment of the subject. Regarding the first, Fiorin mentions the semiotician
Manar Hamad (1983), who discusses enunciation as a process and a system, as well as
Catherine Orecchioni (1980), who differentiates between enunciative facts in a broad
sense (essentially syntax and discourse semantics) and enunciative facts in a strict sense
(basically the deictic). Then, he takes his theoretical position and these latter studies as a
starting point to explain the concepts of enunciated enunciation, reported enunciation
and enunciated utterance, explaining that his focus is on deictics.
Regarding the second, the instance of the establishment of the subject, Fiorin once
again evokes Benveniste to deal with subjectivity in language, reaffirming that man only
exists in language and through language and, thus the category person is the primary
language axis; the existence of time and space depend on it. Under the semiotic
perspective of enunciation, some concepts are crucial for this discussion, namely shifting
out (internal, external) and shifting in (of enunciation x of enunciate); homocategoric x
heterocategoric); enunciative shifiting out, enuncive shifting out and their meaning
effects. At this point, he explicitly recalls French semiotics (GREIMAS; COURTÈS,
1979)8 and the French discourse analyst Dominique Maingueneau (1981), deepening and
widening fundamental concepts for the theory of enunciation. Benveniste is the starting
point and is the epistemological inspiration that motivates Fiorin to think about the ways
of enunciation in the Portuguese language. The other authors, either from Greimasian
semiotics or from the French DA (Discourse Analysis), appear as a proof that enunciation
is an instance which has been studied by an array of different lines of thinking regarding
language studies and which plays a major role in both semiotic and discursive studies.
All this theoretical apparatus, with a clear Greimasian terminology, is associated
with typical characteristics of Fiorin, who is also concerned with Literature and other
Arts. In his study there are examples of the shifting in and shifting out phenomena, which
are concepts with which not all linguists or discourse analysts are familiar in different

8
GREIMAS, A. J; COURTÈS, J. Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary. Translated by Larry
Crist et all. Bloomington, In: Indiana University Press, 1982 [1979].

60 Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015.

languages and different planes of expression. By evoking films and paintings and
clarifying the scope of these notions, he also demonstrates that the concepts presented are
valid for all kinds of language and not only for verbal language.
In short, Fiorin follows a theoretical path that begins in Saussure and ends in
Semiotics, and by doing so he determines the three elements of enunciation that will be
the object of analysis, discussion and interpretation, namely person, time and space.

3 On Person

Benveniste is at the heart of Fiorin’s (1996) study, when he deals with person
under an enunciative perspective. Thus, he instructively discusses Benveniste’s notions
of person and nonperson, illustrating the theory by using literary and media texts.
Articulating grammar and discursive knowledge, Fiorin shows how the category of
person is defined in language by personal and possessive pronouns. Innovation in Fiorin’s
work results from the accomplishment of the aims of his research, that is, a full account
of the senses of the possessive pronouns in the Portuguese language, as can be seen in the
categories of multiplied person, subverted person, spread person, split person. For each
one of them, Fiorin calls forth linguists, discourse analysts and semioticians who give
support to his understanding while he continues providing examples.
On referring to the multiplied person, Fiorin starts from the concepts of
constitutive and shown heterogeneity, examining the heterogeneity of language and
presenting the variety of enunciative instances followed by numerous examples from
literary texts. At the end, he gives a detailed explanation on the meaning effects of the
use of quotation marks, meeting again with the work of Dominique Maingueneau.
With regard to the modified person, it is the functioning of direct, indirect and free
indirect speeches, as well as the exploration of a variety of possibilities of meaning
effects, which are produced by them, that paves the way to a comprehensive explanation
of the topic, which is mostly exemplified by Brazilian literary works. The subverted
person is characterized through a survey of the possibilities of the shiftings in of the
category of person followed by a presentation of its realizations in language, as well as
by an explanation of its meaning effects. To end his considerations on this category,
Fiorin shows the regularities of the operations of the actantial shiftings in, demonstrating

Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015. 61

and insisting that this operation is not chaotic, but systematic, and that, generally, it can
produce meaning effects of approximation or detachment, of objectivity or subjectivity.
The spread person, the one who exceeds, so to speak, is presented by the classic example
of the way Italian people communicate in Brazil (he me arrives and me goes, always
without saying anything).
Regarding the split person, Fiorin offers a close study on the narrator, with the
help of different trends in language studies, essentially basing it on works of literary
criticism (BARTHES, 1971; GENETTE, 1972; GALVÃO, 1972) and on French
semiotics (GREIMAS; COURTÈS, 1979;9 FONTANILLE, 1989; BARROS, 1988).
Initially, it is the difference between the narrator and observer that is brought to the front;
secondly, it is the observer categories, such as partial focalization (internal or external)
and total focalization, to distinguish between observer/narrator and focalized narration. It
is worth highlighting the shiftings in macro textual level, which occur when over the
course of a narrative, for instance, an I refers to a he and vice versa. The example is from
Memorial de Aires authored by Machado de Assis. In this narrative, the narrator seems to
be Aires, but it is, in fact, someone else who reproduces his manuscripts.
In conclusion, the relationship among science, religion, myth and fiction that has
been mentioned in the initial enunciative proposal recaptures the scope and the
comprehension that Fiorin (1996) attributes to enunciation studies:

The level boundaries are movable. To go beyond them, mix them, make
the actant of a level the actant of another produces a meaning effect of
fiction, of meta-reality, of setting free from rigid mimetic conventions.
After all, fiction is pretense. It is the process by which man has the
creative power assigned by myth to divinity. By means of the word,
other realities as real as the one that gets this designation are created
(1996, p.124). 10

9
For reference, see footnote 8.
10
Text in original: “As fronteiras dos níveis são móveis. Ultrapassá-las, misturar os graus, fazer de um
actante de um nível actante do outro produzem um efeito de sentido de ficção, de meta-realidade, de
liberação das rígidas convenções miméticas. Afinal, ficção é fingimento, é o processo pelo qual o homem
tem o poder criador atribuído pelo mito à divindade. Com a palavra, cria outras realidades tão reais quanto
aquela que recebe essa denominação.”

62 Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015.

4 On Time

By putting myth and science together once more, the reflections made by Fiorin
(1996) take into consideration the way time itself is conceived by Greek mythology, the
Bible and Philosophy to finally reach temporality in Linguistics with the presence of
Aristotle and Saint Augustine to illustrate its different conceptions. To Aristotle, time is
not a question of poetry, but of physics; it is a “physical, natural and cosmic
phenomenon.” To Saint Augustine, who in the book XI of his Confessions reflects at
length on time, the only time that can be measured is the present, which is divided into
three tenses: the present of past things (memory), the present of future things
(expectation), and the present of present things (attention). In other words, what is
measured is the impression that things leave in our spirit.
On accepting linguistic time, Fiorin states that temporalization in language is
imprinted in discursivization, because to him when man narrates he builds in discourse
the simulacrum of his actions in the world, displaying in discourse “[...] what is past, what
no longer exits, what does not yet exist; everything exists in language” (FIORIN, 1996,
p.140).11 In his study the distinct reflections on time and language end with the following
words:

The march of reflections on time sets off as myth and gives way to
philosophy, which establishes the basis for the comprehension of
physical time, and when it notices the subtleness and the complexity of
temporal human experience it leads to linguistic analysis. Time is a
language category because it is intrinsic to narration; however, each
language reveals it differently (FIORIN, 1996, pp.141-142). 12

Such considerations lead to the concept of delimited time, the moment in which
the operation of time in language is emphasized. Here Fiorin necessarily refers back to
Benveniste’s inaugural speech on this issue in order to shed light upon the differences
among chronic, physical, and linguistic times. Under this enunciative perspective of time,
it is clear that the temporal center of language is organized from speech, having the

11
Text in original: “[...] o que é passado, o que não é mais, o que ainda não é, tudo presentificado na
linguagem.”
12
Text in original: “A marcha da reflexão sobre o tempo começa como mito, dá lugar à filosofia, que
estabelece as bases da compreensão do tempo físico, e, ao perceber a sutileza e a complexidade da
experiência temporal humana, desemboca na análise linguística. O tempo é uma categoria da linguagem,
pois é intrínseco à narração, mas cada língua manifesta-o diferentemente.”

Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015. 63

present time as an axis. Thus, anteriority and posteriority correspond to movements
backwards and forwards in relation to the moment of the utterance act, which in turn
means that the vast specificity of linguistic time corresponds to the ordering process
related to the moment of enunciation. Despite the differences aforementioned, linguistic
time shares characteristics with other types of time, such as the notion of order
(successiveness and simultaneity), duration and direction (retrospective and perspective).
The two main features of linguistic time are thus set up: a) the moment of enunciation is
both its originator and generator axis; b) the arrangement of states and transformations
narrated in text are related to time (FIORIN, 1996, p.145).
Still immersed in Benveniste’s thoughts, Fiorin (1996) discusses the concepts of
referent moment, event moment and enunciation moment through numerous examples
from literary discourse, always taking into consideration the possible temporal systems
within discourse (enunciative and enuncive). And here is the point in his study in which
three categories of time are discussed. In systematized time Fiorin goes into details about
tenses and verbal aspects in the interior of enunciative and enuncive systems, developing
the subsections “of adverbs,” “of prepositions,” and “of conjunctions” in order to
completely exhaust the many possible manifestations of the category time in language. In
modified time he addresses the internal projections of direct, indirect and free indirect
speeches, as well as the changes required for the transition from one system to another.
In harmonized time he explains harmonization in the agreement of more than one tense
and the effects they have on meaning. In this section, the viewpoints of different
grammarians are mentioned － and often met with strong disagreement － and discursive
solutions that govern the operations of these agreements are presented.
Besides the three time categories mentioned above, there is also the category
subverted time, in which the possible uses of a time with the value of another are analyzed,
that is, the temporal shiftings in. After exposing ninety theoretical possibilities in
Portuguese, Fiorin starts the description of the shiftings in found by dividing them into
three groups: neutralizations in the interior of the same system; neutralizations among the
same terms of the topological category of different subsystems, and neutralization among
different terms of the topological category of distinct subsystems. The three groups are
richly illustrated, highlighting, for instance, the use of the imperfect preterit by the
present, unfolded in five classes: imperfect of attenuation; shared situation; hypocoristic

64 Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015.

imperfect (phrases said to babies); imperfect of distance and imperfect suggesting
fictitious evasion (FIORIN, pp.209-210). In addition to the presentation of the
neutralization of verbs, Fiorin also approaches the neutralization of adverbs of time. Such
classifications per se are of an exceptional value; however, Forin goes further and recalls
and reinforces the idea of systematicity in instabilities, going back to the reasoning that
supports his thesis:

In discourse the times escape from the rigid conventions of the system;
they mix, overlap, pursue each other, serve as counterpoint to each
other, move away, get close, combine, occur in an imbricated game of
articulation and meaning effects. However, as in counterpoint, they
obey the rules of semantic coercions. The discourse creates the cosmos
and abhors the chaos (1996, p.229).13

In order to reiterate all the points made so far, Fiorin (1996) opens an ample space
to the concept of split time. The temporalities of micro and macro events of enunciation
and enunciate are faced with a polemical dialogue with Genette (1972) and the greimasian
theory. From his enunciative perspective, Fiorin (1996) proposes adjustments to the
theory of place of three temporal systems. He claims that there are only two linguistic
temporalizations: enunciation and utterance. With regard to Greimas, he intends to
transfer linguistic temporalization to the scope of what the semiotician called temporal
localization, leaving to Greimasian programmation only what is manifested by chronic
time or what concerns the successiveness and simultaneity of happenings. In addition, he
proposes the unfolding of shiftings out in shiftings out of enunciation and in shiftings out
of utterance, justifying this (re)formulation by observing the presence of verbs in the
enunciative system in narratives classified by Greimas as enuncive or, conversely,
enuncive verbs in narratives of enunciative systems. Both shiftings out, as shown in
Fiorin’s studies, do not have the same status, since the shiftings out of the utterance are
subordinated to the shiftings out of enunciation.
Fiorin continues dialoguing with different theories, particularly with different
classifications, having as interlocutors the same Genette and Greimas in relation to the
macro shiftings in, which rule “the global relationship between the time of enunciation

13
Text in original: “Os tempos, no discurso, fogem das rígidas convenções do sistema, mesclam-se,
superpõem-se, perseguem uns aos outros, servem de contraponto uns aos outros, afastam-se, aproximam-
se, combinam-se, sucedem-se num imbricado jogo de articulações e de efeitos de sentido. No entanto, como
no contraponto, obedecem a regras, a coerções semânticas. O discurso cria o cosmo e abomina o caos.”

Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015. 65

and time of utterance” (1996, p.238).14 To prove his enunciative perspective, he explores
the varying possibilities of realization of temporal unfolding in the instance of enunciation
and utterance in all their internal projections. Finally, when he concludes his enunciative
reflections on time, he merges the philosophical and the linguistic points of view in a
definition of discourse:

Discourse creates a time that simulates a temporal experience of man

through a complex game between the temporalities of enunciation and
utterance and among simultaneity, anteriority, and posteriority. If the
narrative is a simulacrum of man’s actions in the world, its temporality
is simulation of the experience of time, which is constituted from the
moment in which the I take the word, in which the present is the course,
the past is memory, and the future is wait (FIORIN, 1996, p.248,
original emphasis). 15

5 On Space

Fiorin (1996) dedicates a lengthy discussion to space, because unlike the

categories of person and time, which were extensively studied by language scholars －
some of whom were invoked as interlocutors in Fiorin’s enunciative perspective － little
has been written about it. According to him, the reflections of literary studies on space
typically focus on the semantic character, highlighting, among the semantic spatial
studies, the philosopher and French poet Gaston Bachelard (1884-1962). Therefore, the
theory of enunciation should be dedicated to spatial syntax, that is, to the relation between
the space of the enunciation and the utterance and its projections. In his view, the category
of space has less relevance in the discursivization process (when compared to person or
time) due to the impossibility of not using the categories of time and person in speech,
which are expressed by bound morphemes always present in the verbal lexicon, while it
is possible not having the presence of space, since it is expressed by free morphemes.
Fiorin (1996) then returns to Benveniste and to some dichotomies proposed by
French semiotics, emphasizing that space articulates itself around the interior vs. exterior,

14
Text in original: “a relação global entre tempo da enunciação e tempo do enunciado.”
15
Text in original: “O discurso, por meio de um complexo jogo entre as temporalidades da enunciação e
do enunciado, entre simultaneidades, anterioridades e posterioridades, cria um tempo que simula a
experiência temporal do homem. Se a narrativa é um simulacro da ação do homem no mundo, sua
temporalidade é simulação da experiência do tempo, que se constitui a partir do momento em que o eu toma
a palavra, em que o presente é o transcurso, o passado é memória e o futuro é espera.”

66 Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015.

closing vs. opening, fixity vs. mobility categories. In the spectrum of delimited space, he
distinguishes topical space (which belongs to the physical world) from linguistic space
(introduced by enunciation), showing that it organizes itself from the hic, the locus of
ego, which is the center of spatial reference in discourse. A similarity between the
peculiarities of the space and the linguistic times can be observed here: both have their
axis in parole. In systematized space, Fiorin gives a full account of the terms used to
delimit space in the Portuguese language, explaining its operation and its constructed
meaning effects. Here he also describes demonstrative pronouns, prepositions and
adverbs – despite the fact that such descriptions were already successfully carried out by
other authors (i.e. the descriptions of demonstrative pronouns in the Portuguese language
by Câmara Jr., 1970).
After that, Fiorin (1996) continues his dialogue with other grammarians and
slightly disagrees with Cunha (1972) when discussing modified space. To him, a direct
model of transposition of pronouns and spatial adverbs from direct to indirect speech does
not exist. In such cases he believes that the projections of the categories of space vary
according to the relationship between the situation of narration and interlocution, that is,
they change if the spatial point of view in the narration is the same or different from the
one in interlocution.
Just as it happens with the categories of person and time, the category of space
can produce neutralizations. In this case the spatial shiftings in are shown in two groups:
firstly, shiftings in between distinct places of the enunciative system; secondly, shiftings
in between spaces of the enunciative and enuncive systems. Like time, spatial categories
unfold in enunciation space and enunciative space, the first being the place where
narration occurs and the latter being the place where the narrated facts happen. The
operation and the meaning effects that result from the play between different spatial
instances are described in the last section of his work: split space. Finding support in the
ideas of Eni Orlandi (1992), Fiorin concludes his reflections by claiming that silence, as
well as time and space, is one of the extensions of discourse; it belongs to the enunciator
and it is also a constitutive element of sense.

Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015. 67

Conclusions

In this paper I used a contemporary Brazilian perspective of enunciation as a basis

for discussion. I followed not only Fiorin’s reflections, but also the interlocutions he
maintains, in a polemical and/or historical way, with a large number of language scholars,
who in some way have contributed to the materialization of the perspective presented here
and which articulates tradition and novelty. Fiorin concludes his study in a brief,
instructive and systematic way － using no more than three pages, two items and fourteen
sub items － gathering what was disseminated throughout his work around two crucial
elements: the enunciative and enuncive system of the categories time, person and space,
and the instabilities to which these categories are submitted and which, in a deep level,
create the same meaning effects because of the coercions they experience.
Discourse is the place where those who have been expelled from The Paradise
produce meaning. It is the place for ambivalence, disputes between tradition and change,
as well as fixity and transition. It is inserted in History, and thus it experiences limitations
and instabilities. These characteristics are at the core of Fiorin’s final considerations:

We have not reached far; what has authorized us was the “system” of
instabilities. We have followed tradition: what is authorized by the
system exists. However, we have to bear in mind that as discourse
belongs in History it can change the system (1996, p.303).16

Perhaps, Maria Helena de Moura Neves’s review can illustrate the reason why this
study on the theories of enunciation has focused on As astúcias da enunciação, as well as
how the theoretical and methodological frameworks have drawn a map of previous
studies:

We are facing a book that links beginning and end. If this were not the
case, how would it be possible to write the whole deictic system of the
Portuguese language on mere three hundred pages? From beginning to
end the book shows how the “imaginary body” (the space) and the
“fictitious movement” (the time) that are submitted to “subject”
(person) come to life in language. From beginning to end the book
promotes an interaction between system and discourse, instability and

16
Text in original: “Não fomos tão longe, o que nos autorizou foi o “sistema” de instabilidades. Seguimos
a tradição: o que é autorizado pelo sistema existe. No entanto, cabe ainda lembrar que o discurso, sendo da
ordem da História, pode mudar o sistema.”

68 Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015.

 stability, science and art, nature and culture, myth and history, and
finally, clay and breath (MOURA-NEVES: 1997, p.108).17

The astuteness of As astúcias da enunciação lies rightly in interaction and in

integration. It is a serious and authoritative work, in which Fiorin dialogues with
grammarians, literary critics, semioticians, discourse analysts, enunciation scholars,
philosophers, among others, to delve into discourse and offer a new perspective, which is
fundamentally based upon theory and methodology. As a reader, I rest my eyes on the
countless examples that allow me to follow Aurélia’s life, Rubião’s expertise, Fabiano’s
distress.18 I take a breath before I move to the next shifting, which demands mental effort
and abstraction powers. Meanwhile, another reader fleetingly glimpses through the
example, jumping to the next challenge of comprehension of a new temporal subversion.
Fiorin’s conquests of readers is what constitutes the astuteness in the title, which can also
be detected in the formidable presence of literature in his study.
As a game of mirrors between the instances of enunciation and utterance, his study
materializes the enunciative dimension that operates in different levels: the micro-level,
through his precise work on the categories of person, time and space in language; the
meso-level, which presents the notions of actoralization, temporalization and
specialization and reveals meaning effects in discourse, besides promoting reflections on
narratives and the act of narrating; and finally the macro-level, which approaches
philosophy, religion, mythology, science and places his study, placing the work in the
humanities. It is no wonder that Fiorin favors Machado de Assis in his quotations...
The fact that Brazilian semioticians are more prone to explore the level of
enunciation than semioticians from other countries is solid proof of the usefulness of
Fiorin’s enunciation theory, as well as of his influence in enunciation studies. I have to
reiterate that Brazilian semioticians are more prone to explore the level of enunciation
than semioticians from other countries because of Fiorin’s work on discursive syntax.

REFERENCES
17
Text in original: “Estamos diante de um livro que ata pontas do começo ao fim. Se não, que é isso de
conseguir colocar em parcas trezentas páginas todo o sistema dêitico da língua? De ponta a ponta o livro
mostra como o “corpo imaginário” (o espaço) e o “movimento fictício” (o tempo) submetidos ao “sujeito”
(pessoa) adquirem realidade e vida na linguagem. De ponta a ponta interagem sistema e discurso,
instabilidade e estabilidade, ciência e arte, natureza e cultura, mito e história, afinal, barro e sopro.”
18
TN. Aurélia, Rubião and Fabiano are Brazilian literary characters from the novels Senhora by José de
Alencar, Quincas Borba by Machado de Assis and Vidas secas by Graciliano Ramos respectively.

Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015. 69

ANSCOMBRE, J.C; DUCROT, O. L’argumentation dans la langue. Languages, Paris,
n.42, p.5-27, jun. 1976.
BARROS, D. L. Teoria do discurso: fundamentos semióticos. São Paulo: Atual, 1988.
BARTHES, R. et al. Análise estrutural da narrativa. Trad. Maria Zélia Barbosa.
Petrópolis: Vozes, 1971.
BENVENISTE, E. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard, 1966. v.1.
_____ Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard, 1974. v.2.
CÂMARA Jr., J. M. Estrutura da língua portuguesa. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1970.
CERVONI, J. L’énonciation. Paris: PUF, 1987.
CUNHA, C. Gramática do português contemporâneo. 3. ed. Belo Horizonte: Bernardo
Alvares, 1972.
FIORIN, J. L. As astúcias da enunciação. São Paulo: Ática, 1996.
FONTANILLE, J. Les espaces subjectives. Introduction à la sémiotique de l’observateur.
Paris: Hachette, 1989.
GALVÃO, W. N. As formas do falso. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1972.
GENETTE, G. Figures III. Paris: Seuil, 1972.
GORDON, D.; LAKOFF, G. Postulats de conversation. Langages. Paris, n.30, p. 32-55,
1973.
GREIMAS, A. J; COURTÈS, J. Sémiotique: dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du
langage. Paris: Hachette, 1979. v.1.
GRICE, H. Paul. Logique et conversation. Communications. Paris, n. 30, p.52-72, 1979.
HAMAD, M. L’enonciation: procès et systèmes. Langages, Paris, n. 70, p.35-46, 1983.
KERBRAT-ORECCHIONI, C. L’enonciation. De la subjectivité dans le langage. Paris:
Armand Colin, 1980.
LANDOWSKI, E. La société réfléchie. Paris: Seuil, 1989.
MAINGUENEAU, D. Approche de l’énonciation en linguistique française. Paris:
Hachette, 1981.
MOURA NEVES, M. H. As astúcias da enunciação. Resenha. Linha D’água. São Paulo,
n.11, p.107-110, 1997.
ORLANDI, E. P. As formas do silêncio. No movimento do sentido. Campinas: Editora
da Unicamp,1992.

Translated by Georgia Teixeira - georgiateixeira@hotmail.com

Received February 10,2015

Accepted August 08,2015

70 Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 10 (3): 53-70, Sept./Dec. 2015.